There's also talk of California seceding (just like there was talk of Texas regaining its independence when O'Bama won), but it wouldn't make much difference as Silicon Valley is already in a world of its own.
US citizens crash Canadian immigration site after Trump victory
With mop-haired politico octopus Donald Trump beating Hillary Clinton to the White House, the Canadian Immigration website has crashed under the weight of US citizens seeking an escape. The Donald scooped up 49.1 per cent of the votes versus 47.3 per cent for his opponent (at the time of writing). Many of the key states swung …
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 9th November 2016 20:58 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: O'Bama
" biased comments like this"
Indeed.
Take a page or two from the Leaders [NSFW], El Reg!!
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 9th November 2016 21:54 GMT Anonymous Coward
In late breaking news......
Mexican wall project delayed as Canadian government corners the market on construction materials.
"Sheesh! Not only do we need to keep all of these disappointed Hillary voters from flooding the Dominion, we will have to pay for the bloody wall!"
.... anonymous government spokesman
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 9th November 2016 18:02 GMT This is my handle
Re: Wall Building
Sorry, but we're dead broke. And The Donald's projected to send the deficit thru the roof. Once upon a time there were "tax & spend" Democrats & "fiscally conservative" Republicans. The Dems have remained pretty much the same, but Republicans since the Reagan era (inclusive; W's dad was the famous exception, and got the boot for it) have pretty much been "spend and don't tax".
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 9th November 2016 12:31 GMT HausWolf
Because the Orange buffoon will deliberately break the Iran deal that was negotiated with 5 other countries and his mindless followers will go starting trouble not knowing the difference between Shia and Sunni and why they hated us for meddling in their politics to begin with.
It will be 100% his fault.
-
Wednesday 9th November 2016 13:35 GMT Anonymous Coward
@HausWolf
You seriously believe they don't know the difference between Shia and Sunni and that they'll just interfere for the hell of it? Do you seriously believe that politicians are playing some simplistic video game, make totally random uninformed decisions and don't have thousands of staff that check all these facts for them?
If yes, then it must have been even worse in the past, when researching facts was all the more difficult, but it still worked out for them just fine (i.e., see Cold War, humanity didn't wipe itself out somehow).
-
-
Thursday 10th November 2016 10:55 GMT Lotaresco
Re: @HausWolf
It's unfair to say that Trump and his voters don't know the difference between various parts of the world. The President Elect has produced his very own map to explain to his electorate where all the important things are.
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 9th November 2016 15:00 GMT Anonymous Coward
Right wing SCOTUS
He'll replace the most conservative member, Scalia, with another conservative member. Unless one of the liberals dies or decides to retire before 2020, it will be the same makeup as it was before. He isn't going to change the face of SCOTUS any more than Obama did.
It is too early to know for sure, but given that Trump will be unable to follow through on the promises to the angry white working men who put him over the top, like bringing jobs back to the US, getting the US out of NAFTA, putting tariffs on China, etc. and probably not even building the wall (let alone making Mexico pay for it) I think it is highly likely that whatever democrat wins his or her party's nomination in 2020 will make him a one term president. As long as their health holds out, the liberal members of SCOTUS are likely to stay put at least until then - if they were looking to leave sooner they probably would have left already knowing Obama would replace them with someone of like views.
-
-
Wednesday 9th November 2016 17:16 GMT Eddy Ito
Re: Right wing SCOTUS
Why do the Dems "only have to wait one year"? The Dems can filibuster now but as they have already used "the nuclear option" on judicial appointments there is precedence to override the required three fifths majority to break a filibuster albeit that would be novel in the case of a Supreme Court nominee.
-
-
-
-
-
Wednesday 9th November 2016 12:29 GMT cambsukguy
Apparently, NOT most of America, percentage-wise or electoral college wise.
Most of the IQ points I grant you.
Let down buy the people it needed to help the most to seems.
Gotta feel sorry for the people who will soon lose their Obamacare and the future people who will lose the right to choose.
A solid right-wing SCOTUS will be a horror for a long time.
He has two years to do almost anything he wishes, I am assuming a large left swing in the mid-terms when the wall is not built and people that voted for him don't get their incomes improved and the job market doesn't improve generally - always assuming that is the case of course.
-
Wednesday 9th November 2016 15:19 GMT Anonymous Coward
Gimme A Break
1) Most of America voted for Trump.
2) Are you not aware there already is a conflict in Syria?
Do you think Trump is responsible for that?
Why wouldn't it be the current President and the person who was SOS at the time?
3) As for Iran: Messrs Obama and Kerry have been setting the stage for that, haven't they?
-
Wednesday 9th November 2016 15:40 GMT John Brown (no body)
Re: Gimme A Break
"Why wouldn't it be the current President and the person who was SOS at the time?"
That would be because a responsible leader has to take on the responsibilities and commitments already in place when they take over. They can try to move away from them if they choose, but they have to move slowly and carefully. Trump can't just pull up the drawbridge 5 minutes after being sworn in. He may be about to become president in January, but the USA still has to operate as "normal" and Trump cannot simply do as he pleases.
-
-
Wednesday 9th November 2016 21:05 GMT Fungus Bob
Re: Gimme A Break
"votes siphoned off by the third party candidates"
What a ludicrous statement! Votes are never siphoned off by third party candidates because:
1. If the third party candidates did not exist, there is no reason to think that those who voted for them would have voted for the two big party candidates as they may have decided to abstain.
2. No candidate is entitled to votes. Therefore, it is impossible to "steal" votes from them. If anything, Clinton and Trump owe the world an apology.
-
-
-
Wednesday 9th November 2016 17:41 GMT Eddy Ito
Re: Gimme A Break
According to what I see here, at 98% reporting, Clinton has 200,000 more popular votes than Trump. But in the U.S., popular votes don't count in the presidential election.
While it's true that nobody won a majority of the vote, I don't see why it matters. One of the benefits of not relying on popular vote is that it allows third parties a chance to be competitive.
Unfortunately the system has been hijacked by the purple cartel to strangle outside parties which they do most egregiously and effectively with the CPD firmly in their talons.
There were far more third party candidates prior the year 2000 CPD rule that required 15% polling of a candidate to be included in the debates. A rule that was enacted to keep folks like Ross Perot out. Expect more of the same and more division until the CPD is dismissed or is made non-partisan.
-
-
Wednesday 9th November 2016 18:19 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Gimme A Break
You may want to check your #'s.
Hillary actually won the popular vote, but lost the electoral college, and thus the election. But this also means that more Americans voted for her than trump.
So the country isn't exactly in love with Trump. And hopefully he doesn't ruin the country too badly between now and the next election. Assuming he isn't impeached before then.
-
Wednesday 9th November 2016 19:27 GMT Eddy Ito
Re: Gimme A Break
You may want to check your #'s.
Hillary actually won the popular vote, but lost the electoral college, and thus the election.
You may want to check what I wrote. To wit, nobody won a majority of the popular vote. Yes, Hillary may have gotten a plurality but not a majority. But this also means that more Americans voted against Hillary than for her so clearly they aren't exactly in love with her either.
-
-
-
Biting the hand that feeds IT
